Skip to main content

Full text of "Container terminal options"

See other formats


^ CONTAINER 
TERMINAL OPTIONS 

Mission Bay 

San Francisco 



1^. ,. HTJiENTS pert> 

SF_P15 19B6 
gum i c MBRA»v 



September 1986 



San Francisco Department of City Planning 




SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

l^iFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not lo be taken from the Library 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 




3 1223 03564 8824 

CONTAINER TERMINAL OPTIONS 



September 1986 



SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 
450 MCALLISTER STREET 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 

MOFFAT AND NICHOL, ENGINEERS 
250 WEST WARDLOW ROAD 
LONG BEACH, CA 90807 



•387 



3 1223 03564 8824 



MISSION BAY STUDY 
CONTAINER TERMINAL OPTIONS 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

Summary 

I. Introduction 3 

II. Present Conditions and Policy Considerations 3 

A. Port of San Francisco 3 

1. San Francisco Container Terminals, Piers 80 and 94-96 5 

2. Pier 70 5 

3. Piers 48-50 5 

B. San Francisco Master Plan 5 

1. Central Waterfront Plan 6 

2. Recreation and Open Space Element 6 

C. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and San Francisco Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission 6 

1. San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan 6 

2. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan 7 

D. State Lands Commission 11 

III. Consolidated Pier 70 and 80 Container Terminal Concepts and Separate 
Terminal Concepts at Pier 50, 70 and 80 11 

A. Six and Seven Berth Container Terminal Alternatives 11 

B. Comparison of Container Terminal Development Alternatives for 

Piers 50, 70 & 80, Port of San Francisco 14 

1. Design Criteria 14 

2. Selection of Alternatives 14 

3. Criteria For Comparison 18 

C. Alternatives 23 

IV. Implications for Port of San Francisco 66 

V. Implications for Mission Bay 67 

A. Maintain Existing Pier 50 Container Terminal Concept 67 

B. Replace Pier 50 Container Terminal Concept with a Consolidated 

Pier 70 and 80 Terminal Complex 68 

1. Land Acquisition 68 

2. Public Policy Considerations 69 

3. Mission Bay Planning 69 



i 



List of Figures 



Figure I Present Maritime Concepts and Open Space 4 

Figure 2 Special Area Plan 8 

Figure 3 Land Ownership 9 

Figure 4 Seaport Plan Near-Term Marine Terminal Sites, Central Waterfront. 10 

Figure 5 Cargo Flow Diagram, Ground Storage Type Container Terminal 15 

Figure 6 Conceptual Design, Container Wharf 22 

Figure 7 Choices for Mission Bay Illustrative Plan 5 68 

Figure 8 Adjustments Required to Seaport Plan 70 

Figure 9 Possiole Enlargement of Mission Bay Site 72 

Plans of Container Terminal Alternatives 24-63 



f 



SUMMARY 



This Container Terminal Options report is a Mission Bay Special Study. 
This report was prepared by the Department working in conjunction with the 
Port of San Francisco and staff of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. A 
technical group from all agencies provided direction to the engineering firm 
of Moffatt & Nichol in evaluating different container terminal options in San 
Francisco's Central i^laterf ront. Tne report presents public policies pertinent 
to marine container terminal facilities within San Francisco's Central 
Waterfront, analyzes various other container terminal facility alternatives in 
that area, and discusses implications for Port operations and for Mission 
Bay. 

The Mission Bay site east of Thira Street is partly held by the Port of 
San Francisco, as public lands managed in trust for the State, and partly 
ownea by the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation, the Mission Bay project 
sponsor. The majority of that private property, as well as the public 
property, is designated as the Mission Rock (Piers 48-50) container terminal 
facility in the Port's master plan. It is also a near-term marine terminal 
site in the San Francisco Bay Seaport Plan of the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission (MTC) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development 
Commission (6CDC). 

This report investigates the technical feasibility of locating such a 
container terminal facility at an alternative location within the Central 
Waterfront area, in conjunction with Port holdings at Pier 70 and the present 
San Francisco Container Terminals (Pier 80 and Piers 94-96). Such a facility 
would require obtaining privately-held land between those two Port holdings to 
develop a consolidated container terminal facility. This report analyzes 
comparative cargo capacities, construction costs, Bay fill, and other aspects 
of container terminal concepts at Pier 50, Pier 70, Pier 80, and on tne land 
between Pier 70 and 80 (See Figure 1). If the Mission Rock facility were not 
developed as a container terminal. Piers 48-50 would remain in maritime use as 
at present. 

The analysis concludes that there would be equivalent cargo capacities 
with either container terminal concept: (1) tne consolidated terminal 
encompassing Pier 70, Pier 80 and lands in between; and (2) tnree separate 
terminals developed at Pier 50, Pier 70 and Pier 80. Six or seven berth 
options are available at either location. Seaport Plan cargo throughput goals 
can De met at either location. For the six berth option, the consolidated 
terminal would require from two to 20 acres less Bay fill than the separate 
terminals. For seven berths, consolidated would imply eight acres more fill 
than separate terminals. However, construction costs would be about $25 to 
$30 million (10 to 15%) less for either six or seven berth consolidated 
terminals, exclusive of land cost, than for the separate terminals. Land 
costs reduce tnis differential somewhat, but consolidated terminals would 
still cost less than separate terminals. 

This analysis suggests that the Port may gain operational advantages by 
looking towards consolidation of container terminal operations in an expanded 



1 



North Terminal (Pier 80 expanded toward Pier 70) of its present San Francisco 
Container Terminals. It would have immediate rail access, control several 
miles of contiguous maritime land, and be able to expand from existing 
facilities. There is greater likelihood of implementation with the 
consolidated plan. If the Port elected to proceed in this direction, a number 
of actions by the Port and other agencies may be required. 

Establish feasibility of acquiring privately-held lands between Pier 
80 and Pier 70, perhaps through exchange of Port lands in the Pier 50 
vicinity. 

Amend tne Port master plan to delete a Pier 50 container terminal, to 
be replaced with a consolidated Pier 80 to Pier 70 North Terminal. 

If an exchange of Port land in the Pier 50 vicinity is necessary to 
oDtain lands for a consolidated facility, approval of the State Lands 
Commission and action by the State Legislature to authorize the 
transfer could be required. This would involve transfer of the 
public trust from current Port land to newly-acquired land. 

Amend the San Francisco Bay Plan, San Francisco Waterfront Special 
Area Plan, and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan to transfer the 
"Near-Term Marine Terminal Development" designation from the Pier 50 
vicinity to the area south of Pier 70. If required as part of an 
exchange for new lands south of Pier 70, remove the port jurisdiction 
and port priority use designations inland of China Basin Street in 
the Pier 50 vicinity. 

Amend the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to transfer the 
recreational facility designation from Warm Water Cove to another 
comparable and equivalent location, most likely in the Pier 50 
vicinity. 

Amend the Central Waterfront Plan and the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan to reflect the revised policies for future 
container terminal facilities, and the replacement of Warm Water Cove 
with a comparable facility most likely in the Pier 50 vicinity. 

This analysis has considerable bearing both upon development within 
Mission Bay, and on its boundaries. Retention of a Pier 50 container terminal 
concept would require a Mission Bay eastern boundary at Third Street, with a 
retail edge on Third to provide buffering for new housing areas west of 
Third. Except for China Basin Channel, open space networks would stop at 
Third Street and not reach the Bay. Alternatively, a consolidated terminal 
could allow Port land east of Third Street to be developed in conjunction with 
Mission Bay, as waterfront parks and housing. 

Tne present Mission Bay site boundaries have included the 18-acre parcel 
suggested for park use in the Mayor's October 1984 letter to Southern 
Pacific. The consolidated terminal would be consistent witn this. A 
consolidated facility would also remove planning, land use and regulatory 
constraints to Santa Fe Pacific's use of its land east of Third Street for 
housing ana open space. 



2 



The Mission Bay site boundaries could be expanded to China Basin Street 
if other Port land, in addition to the 18-acre park, became available as part 
of a transaction to acquire land for a consolidated terminal. This would 
allow additional housing and open space use. It would also enable Mission Bay 
open space networks to not only link the new residential neighbornood with the 
Bay, out allow orientation of the whole development to the Bay as well as 
China Basin Channel. 

I. INTROUUCTION 

This Container Terminal Options study is one of about 20 Mission Bay 
Special Studies. Tlie study presents information on 14 alternative container 
terminal facilities in the Pier 50, Pier 70 and Pier 80 areas. Through 
analyzing various combinations of those alternatives, the study compares 
separate cargo container terminals at Pier 50, Pier 70 and Pier 80 with a 
consolidated cargo container terminal encompassing Pier 70, Pier 80 and lands 
in between. Such a consolidated terminal would be possible if privately-owned 
lands in the vicinity of Piers 70 and 80 were acquired by the Port. Such 
acquisition might occur as an exchange for Port land at Pier 50, as a 
purchase, or oy a combination of approaches. The purpose of this study is to 
present tecnnical information for alternative container terminal scenarios, 
related to such matters as cargo throughput capacity. Bay fill, and 
construction costs, for use by decision-makers in considering such a 
consol idation. 

This study also identifies significant local and regional policies that 
are relevant to container terminals in this Central Waterfront area. These 
reflect actions by tne Port of San Francisco, San Francisco Department of City 
Planning, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Other constraints apply as well, for 
the Port lands are public lands held in trust by the Port for the people of 
the State of California. 

The eventual boundaries of Mission Bay are dependent upon decisions on 
the alternative container terminal facilities described in this study. Use of 
Port land and adjacent Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation land for a Pier 50 
container terminal facility would have a substantial effect on Mission Bay 
development. However, if comparable cargo throughput capacity were possible 
in a consolidated container terminal facility encompassing Piers 70 and 80, 
then Port cargo goals could be achieved elsewhere while planning Port land at 
Pier 50 for use in conjunction with Mission Bay development. 

II. PRESENT CONDITIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 

A. Port of San Francisco 

Port of San Francisco facilities in the Central Waterfront which are 
being used or warrant consideration for container terminals are the San 
Francisco Container Terminals (Piers 80 and 94-96), Pier 70 and Pier 50. 



3 



<i^M<AINiER -fFRMlNAL OPflOK45 




PKE«EMf M^feKlKtB <:dMCBrf& f OPEN SP^CE 



4 



These are identified in Figure 1 on the preceding page, and described below. 

1. San Francisco Container Terminals, Piers 80 and 94-96 

The Port's San Francisco Container Terminals include the North and South 
Terminals on either side of Islais Creek. The North Terminal at Pier 80 
includes 69 acres, and the South Terminal at Piers 94-96 includes 160 acres. 
The North Terminal is proposed for modernization and has adequate wharf length 
for three container berths and another combination berth capable of handling 
containers or break-bulk cargo. Backland for container handling and storage 
IS presently a limiting factor for its cargo handling capacity. 

Tne South Terminal is also proposed for modernization. It would be 
developed to have adequate wharf length for four container berths. Its 160 
acres of land for those berths is consistent with recent standards for 
backland, as set fortn in Section III (6) of this study. 

An Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) is under construction 
within the South Terminal to provide direct rail access for movement of 
containers to and from ships. The modernization program may link the Nortn 
and Soutn Terminals internally by a drawbridge over Islais Creek. 

For purposes of this study, the North Terminal (also known as Pier 80) 
could be expanded to add additional back-up land and wharf length by acquiring 
private property to the north between Pier 80 and Pier 70. The South 
Terminal, on the other hand, is not a factor in this study for possible 
northerly expansion, and will not be discussed further. Further information 
on tnese facilities is available in the San Francisco Container Terminal 
Modernization Final Environmental Impact Report, 85.1 23E, January 23, 1986. 

2. Pier 70 

Pier 70 is the site of an automobile terminal, warehousing, shops and 
open storage. It is irrmediately south of the Todd Shipyard. It would have 
adequate wharf length and site area for one container berth. 

3. Piers 48-50 

Pier 50 as a container terminal concept includes botn Port and Santa Fe 
Pacific Realty Corporation property, and extends from Pier 48 to 64. The site 
presently includes the newsprint terminal (Pier 48), and at Pier 50 the 
Mission Rock Terminal breakbulk facilities and a ship repair facility. The 
Port's master plan calls for a container terminal in this area. The Port's 
"Conceptual Maritime Master Planning for Southern Waterfront" report, prepared 
by Vickerman-Zachary-Mi 1 ler in 1981, outlines a 145-acre Mission Rock Terminal 
facility with sufficient wharf length for five berths. Backland for container 
handling and storage was assumed at 25 acres per berth. Under recent 
standards of 40 acres per berth, backland would be a limiting factor in its 
cargo handling capability. 

B. San Francisco Master Plan 



1. Central Waterfront Plan 



The Central Waterfront Plan, adopted as part of tne San Francisco Master 
Plan in 1980, in the China Basin Area calls for continuing and expanding the 
use of Piers 48 and 50 for general cargo, and adding a general cargo facility 
at Pier 62. That Plan predated the Vickerman-Zachary-Mi 1 ler five berth 
container concept presented above. 

Tne Central Waterfront Plan in the Central Basin Area calls for expanding 
maritime activity as well. It calls for development of a container facility 
to include at least two berths and 60 acres of oack-up land, promoting the 
expansion of ship maintenance and repair activities at what is now the Todd 
Snipyard, and continuing and expanding the use of Pier 70 as an automobile 
terminal. It calls for retaining and expanding industrial uses in tne Central 
dasin Area. With regard to recreation, it calls for improving and expanding 
tne waterfront recreation areas at Warm Water Cove and Agua Vista Park. It 
further calls for continuing the use of the public boat ramp south of Pier 50, 
unless future Port development requires its replacement with an equivalent 
elsewhere. 

2. Recreation and Open Space Element 

The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, adopted in 1973, 
calls for comparable treatment of the public boat ramp. It also calls for a 
major, 12-acre public waterfront park on the Bay shoreline immediately north 
of tne Todd Shipyard (including tne present Agua Vista Park), and development 
of Warm Water Cove as a park. 

C. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and San Francisco Bay Conservation 
and Development Commission. 

1. San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan 

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (6CDC) San Francisco 
Waterfront Special Area Plan (April 1975 as amended) summarizes the 
McAteer-Petri s Act and Bay Plan provisions generally applicable to the San 
Francisco Waterfront. Generally, new Bay fill can be permitted only for 
certain "water-oriented" uses specified in the law or "minor fill for 
improving shoreline appearance or public access to the Bay." BCDC also must 
make specific findings, such as (1) that the fill is the minimum necessary and 
(2) there is no alternative upland location, before any new fill can be 
approved. 

For the area between Piers 48 and 70, permittee uses on new or replacement 
fill include maritime, public access and a marina. The Special Area Plan 
recommends that existing maritime uses should be continued as long as needed, 
and that the public launching ramp located in this area be retained. For the 
Central Basin area by Agua Vista Park, permitted uses include public 
recreation and open space as well as those listed above. The Plan recommends 
that the Agua Vista Park area continue to oe developed for public access and 
recreation, and Pier 64 for park and marina use when no longer needed for 
maritime. 



For the Pier 72 to 98 area, permitted uses on new or replacement fill 
include maritime and public access. For Warm Water Cove, only public 
recreation, open space and public access fill is sanctioned. It states that 
any expanded Pier 72 should not infringe on Warm Water Cove, that the 
recreational potential and water quality of the Cove should be improved and 
protected, and that no fill should be permitted that would adversely affect 
the Cove's existing or potential recreation or water quality. 

Special Area Plan maps designate port jurisdiction, port priority areas, 
and public recreation and access locations (See Figure 2). These designations 
reflect public policy rather than ownership patterns. Land ownership is 
generally as shown in Figure 3, without separating out public street 
right-of-way within those holdings. 

2. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and BCDC San Francisco 
Bay Area Seaport Plan constitute the maritime element in MTC's Regional 
Transportation Plan and the regional port development plan in BCDC's Bay 
Plan. It established cargo forecasts for the Bay Area, and identified marine 
terminal locations sufficient to accomodate that cargo demand. For San 
Francisco, it reconfirmed the port priority use area and park areas shown on 
Figure 2, identified active marine terminal sites, including Pier 48, Mission 
Rock Terminal (Pier 50), Pier 70, and the Army Street Terminal and Piers 90-96 
(San Francisco Container Terminal). Near-term marine terminal development 
sites included Piers 52 to 64, Pier 70, the Western Pacific Ferry Slip 
immediately north of Pier 80, and Pier 94 North (See Figure 4). 

It is important to provide some perspective for these near-term terminal 
development locations. The Seaport Plan calls for these Central Waterfront 
locations to be developed as marine terminals in order to accommodate the 
cargo demand projected for the Bay Area and San Francisco. These terminal 
locations represented the areas where the Port of San Francisco, BCDC and MTC 
believed Port expansion could occur at the time of Seaport Plan adoption in 
1982. While not all designated land was Port land. Seaport Plan policies call 
for local governments and ports to protect such lands for port use, using land 
use controls if necessary. Ultimately, it was assumed available for port use 
through negotiated acquisition, or condemnation if necessary. If any 
near-term terminal sites are proposed for some other use and thereby requested 
for deletion, the Seaport Plan calls for a complete review of the plan. The 
review, however, might be avoided with the addition of another near-term site 
of equivalent capacity. This would be desirable under the Seaport Plan in 
order to ensure that San Francisco can accommodate its projected share of 
regional cargo demand. Within the Central Waterfront area, land Detween the 
Port's property at Pier 70 and the Western Pacific Ferry Slip (now owned by 
Upland Realty Corporation, a real estate subsidiary of the Union Pacific 
Railroad) is the only land site available for such a transfer of near-term 
development sites. The table "Comparison of Consolidated and Separate 
Terminals" on page 13 indicates that equivalent cargo throughput capacities 
can be achieved. 



7 



^:i>H<AIMEk <&RHHslAU OPTIONS 




^ PdW priority ARfeA 



8 



MI66IOKJ PAY FI(!dJR& 3 




LAMP? OWMEF^^HIP 



9 



<^M<AIMER <BfZ.y\\HAJL C^0YX€> 




10 



D. State Lands Commission 

The State Lands Commission (SLC) has direct responsibility for all 
ungranted State sovereign lands. It exercises oversight responsibility over 
sovereign lands that are the subject of a legislative grant, to ensure that 
such lands are used in a manner consistent with the trust grant. Port lands 
are State sovereign lands held in trust by the Port for the people of the 
State of California pursuant to a legislative grant, with use of those lands 
limited by the trust grant. Public trust land in the Pier 50 area could only 
oe used for non-trust purposes if the puolic trust were to be terminated. 
This would probably require that such lands be exchanged for privately-owned 
lands of equal value which would become subject to the public trust. Such 
action would require approval of the State Lands Commission and/or the State 
Legislature. 

III. CONSOLIDATED PIER 70 AND 80 CONTAINER TERMINAL CONCEPT AND SEPARATE 
TERMINAL CONCEPTS AT PIER 50, 70 AND 80. 

This section compares various container terminal concepts at Pier 50 
(including Piers 48 to 64), Pier, 70, Pier 80, and lands between Pier 70 and 
80. The Department, in tne first part of this section, presents basic 
comparisons of cargo capacity, construction costs and Bay fill of the 
container terminal configurations prepared by the firm of Moffat & Nichol, 
Engineers which developed the Federal Maritime Administration's criteria for 
cargo throughput analysis used in the Seaport Plan. The second part of this 
section, prepared by Moffat & Nichol, indicates their design criteria, tne 
alternatives considered, and criteria for comparison. The section's third 
part, also by Moffat & Nichol, describes the container terminal alternatives 
and presents the technical analysis on which part one is based. 

A. Six and Seven Berth Container Terminal Alternative 

Several six and seven berth container terminal concepts, using recent 
Moffat & Nichol standards of 40 acres of backland for each berth, are possible 
within the Central Waterfront area between China Basin Channel and Islais 
Creek. In all instances these include the North Terminal (Pier 80) of the San 
Francisco Container Terminal and Pier 70, both under Port ownership. 
Additionally, the privately-held Uplands Realty Corporation (hereinafter 
"Upland") land immediately north of Pier 80 is assumed for puolic policy 
purposes to be part of the Pier 80 facility, inasmuch as the Seaport Plan 
designates it as a near-term marine terminal development site. 

The variables in this consideration of several container terminal 
alternatives are (1) the other privately-held lands in tne immediate vicinity 
of Pier 70 and Pier 80, owned by several owners and including a portion of the 
PG&E Potrero Plant, and (2) the Pier 50 land, owned by both the Port and by 
Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation. 

The first of the areas, between Pier 70 and 80, is not designated for a 
marine terminal in the Seaport Plan. Inclusion of this site would enaole a 
consolidation of cargo handling facilities within an expanded Nortn Terminal 
(expanded north to include Pier 70) of the present San Francisco Container 
Terminal (hereinafter the "Consolidated Terminal"). 



11 



The second site reflects the existing public policy designating Pier 50 as 
a container terminal. This would maintain the policy of separate and discrete 
container terminals at Pier 80, Pier 70 and Pier 50 (hereinafter the "Separate 
Terminals") . 

The next part of this section, prepared by Moffat & Nichol, indicates that 
even with the inclusion of Upland land. Pier 80 optimally is a three-berth 
container terminal when analyzed under their standards of 40 acres of backland 
per berth. Similarly, Pier 50 optimally is either two or three berths, 
depending on the amount of Bay fill assumed to be ultimately acceptaole to 
bCOC and other agencies. Pier 70 provides one berth. The land between Pier 
70 and 80 could provide sufficient land, in conjunction with those piers, to 
add either two or three berths to their total, depending on the amount of Bay 
fill. Thus we have for comparison the following scenarios: 



CONSOLIDATED TERMINAL 



SEPARATE TERMINALS 



Location 



Berths Possible 



Location Berths Possible 



Pier 80 

Pier 70 

Land between 

Pier 80 & 70 



3 berths 

1 Derth 

2 or 3 berths 



Pier 80 
Pier 70 
Pier 50 



3 berths 

1 berth 

2 or 3 berths 



Total 



6 or 7 berths 



Total 



6 or 7 berths 



Note: Wnile Pier 80 and Pier 50 both may have been assumed for more berths in 
tne past, a consistent application of the Moffat & Nichol standard of 40 
acres of backland per bertn yields more cargo capacity tnan had been 
assumed under earlier standards. For example, a five-berth Pier 50 
under the former standards would have a cargo throughput of 4.98 million 
tons annually at a cost of $156 million. The recent standards would 
have a three-berth facility with 4.1 million tons annual capacity at a 
cost of $112 million (with a savings of $44 million). 

The Moffat & Nichol alternatives in the next part of this section include 
differing amounts of Bay fill for the same terminal locations. The six berth 
Consoliaated Terminal (Pier 70-80) could range between 15 and 33 acres of 
fill, tne single Pier 70 facility could range between and 4 acres of fill, 
and the two berth Pier 50 facility could range between 10 and 42 acres of 
fill. Accordingly, the terminal concepts below include those differences. 

A six berth Consolidated Terminal, as shown in the table which follows, 
would have an annual cargo throughput of 8.1 million tons, 15 to 33.4 acres of 
Bay fill, and have construction costs of $190 to 193 million. Separate 
Terminals (including Pier 50) with six berths would have an annual cargo 
throughput of 8.0 million tons, require 17.3 to 53.7 acres of Bay fill, and 
have construction costs of $215 to 221 million. 



12 



A seven berth Consolidated Terminal would have an annual cargo throughput 
of 9.15 million tons, require 61.4 acres of Bay fill, and have construction 
costs of $215 million. Separate Terminals with seven berths would have an 
annual cargo throughput of 9.4 million tons, require 53 acres of Bay fill, and 
have construction costs of $247 million. 



COMPARISON OF CONSOLIDATED AND SEPARATE TERMINALS 



Six Berth Concept 



Consolidated Separate Terminals 

Terminal (Pier 80, Pier 70 

(Pier 70-80) and Pier 50) 



Throughput (million tons/year) 8.1 8.0 

Bay fill (acres) 15-33.4 17.3-53.7 

Construction Cost (Millions) $190-193 $215-221 

Seven Berth Concept 

Throughput (million tons/year) 9.15 9.4 

Bay fill (acres) 61.4 5.3 

Construction Cost (Millions) $215 $247 



Clearly the Consolidated Terminal for either six or seven berths has cargo 
throughput capacity comparable to the Separate Terminals. The Consolidated 
Terminal has substantially lower costs of construction, by $25 to 30 million, 
exclusive of land cost. Discussions with the Real Estate Department indicate 
that land costs are not expected to alter the cost advantage of a Consolidated 
Terminal. In terms of Bay fill, the six berth Consolidated Terminal is from 
two to 20 acres better and the seven berth Consolidated Terminal eight acres 
worse, tnan their counterparts. 



13 



B. Comparison of Container Terminal Development Alternatives For Piers 50, 
70 and 80, Port of San Francisco 



This is a study of the marine terminal development potential of Pier 50, Pier 
70, Pier 80, and the lands between Pier 70 and Pier 80. For the selected 
alternatives, the study addresses the engineering feasibility, the cargo 
throughput capability, the cost of terminal construction and equipment, and 
quantifies net new fill area, fill quantity, dredging quantity, and inland 
transport traffic for environmental impact analysis. 



1. Design Criteria 

From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' cargo projections and the Port of San 
Francisco's estimate of probable cargo demand, container cargo terminals were 
the only type considered in these alternatives. A flow diagram representing 
the "ground storage" type of terminal operation assumed for all terminals is 
shown on Figure 5. 

The cargo throughput estimates are based on findings from a recent update of 
the "Port Handbook For Estimating Marine Terminal Cargo Handling Capability". 
This handbook, prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime 
Administration, uses a "modular" methodology developed by Moffatt & Nichol. 
It is a simplified method of estimating using a set of modules or standard 
terminals designed to represent the typical cargo capability and physical 
plant of terminals presently operating in U.S. Ports. 

From the Handbook, two additional criteria are used. The first is that a 
container berth 1,000 feet long having 45 feet of water depth would average 
1,350,000 tons of cargo per year. The second criteria is that 40 acres of 
backland would be needed to work the cargo. These two factors in the sizes 
given would produce a balanced terminal, assuming that sufficient terminal 
plant and equipment is furnished. The theoretical cargo throughput capability 
would be proportionately reduced if either or both of the factors would be 
less than the standard. In the case of an unbalanced terminal, the lesser 
capability would limit the throughput. 

The deck elevation of all terminals is assumed to be 12 feet above mean lower 
low water (MLLW, average of the daily lowest tide). The average large 
container ship that would use this type of terminal would be about 850 feet 
long. 



2. Selection of Alternatives 

The alternatives selected for study came from various sources including the 
staff of the Port of San Francisco, the San Francisco Department of City 
Planning, and Moffatt & Nichol recommendations. 

Note that in all cases, alternatives, involving Pier 50 are designed to avoid 
interference with Mission Rock. 



14 



<S0M<AIMEI5 -fEI^INJAU OPflOkld 




•HIP CRAMC VARO TRUCK TRAVCL CRANC ITORAOC TRAVCL CRANC RAIL 

(OPTIONAL)(OM •RouNOi (OPTIONAL) 



CARGO FLOW DIAGRAM 
GROUND STORAGE TYPE CONTAINER TERMINAL 



CONTAINER TERMINAL OEVELOFMEMT STUDY 

PIER 50. PIER 70 AND PIER 80 
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




15 



Alternatives: 

Pier 50 - Alternative 1 

This alternative represents a prior planning concept by Vickerman, Zachary & 
Miller. It was submitted by the Port as a beginning concept for Pier 50. It 
features 145 acres of backland with 5 berths of 1,000 feet each and would 
replace existing Piers 48, 50, 52, 54 and 64. 



Pier 50 - Alternative 2 

According to Handbook criteria, Pier 50 - Aternative 1 is unbalanced with 
excess berth length. Five 1,000 foot berths would require about 200 acres; 
not more than three berths would be adequately served by 145 acres. The Pier 
50 - Alternative 2 was suggested by Moffatt & Nichol to show that the amount 
of backland in Pier 50 - Alternative 1 would balance better with three berths. 
Three standard berths are laid out in a pattern that avoids removal of Mission 
Rock but incurrs an angle deflection between berths (an undesirable condition 
for operating container gantries between berths). Otherwise, the backland was 
extended inland to Third Street and reduced to 122 acres to balance the 
berths. 



Pier 50 - Alternative 3 

This alternative was designed by Moffatt & Nichol to show how much backland 
would be required for a five berth terminal (200 acres) and that the wharf 
faces would extend into the bay beyond the U.S. Pierhead Line if it were 
designed to Handbook criteria. 



Pier 50 - Alternative 4 

The Port staff felt that a practical terminal development at Pier 50 might be 
limited to a two berth facility. Therefore, Pier 50 - Alternative 4 is 
designed to feature a continuous two berth wharf along the outer edge of the 
existing pier with the sides of the terminal extending straight inland to 
either Third Street or to a reasonable property taking line, as seen on the 
south side. It contains 18 acres more than the 80 acres needed for two berths 
but meets all other requirements for a two berth terminal. 



Pier 50 - Alternative 5 

Pier 50 - Alternative 4 appears to be environmentally insensitive so Pier 50 - 
Alternative 5 is designed as a two berth terminal that would minimize fill 
area and quantity. It would require some dredging to get sufficent water 
depth at berthside but would still minimize environmental impacts. 



16 



Pier 70 - Alternative 1 

Pier 70 - Alternative 1 represents a one berth terminal with 40 acres of land, 
a standard terminal, arranged for economical facilities and land development. 



Pier 70 - Alternative 2 

Pier 70 - Alternative 2 is similar to Pier 70 - Alternative 1 except that the 
wharf face is aligned as close a practical to the existing shoreline in order 
to minimize new fill area and associated environmental impacts. It features 
zero net new fill area. 



Pier 80 - Alternative 1 

This is the base alternative for Pier 80 and represents the probable 
development were there no consideration of a trade-off with terminal 
development of Pier 50. It includes expansion of the terminal northward to 
include the existing railroad ferry loading yard. The expansion would provide 
118 acres for terminal development, two acres short of enough for a fully 
balanced terminal. However, there would be enough backland to permit 
construction of three standard length berths. Two thousand feet of existing 
wharf along Islais Creek would be replaced with a new wharf capable of 
supporting modern container handling equipment. One thousand feet of the 
wharf on the outboard (east) end would also be replaced. The backland would 
have to be cleared and redeveloped into a suitable new terminal. 



Pier 80 - Alternative 2 

This alternative expands Pier 80 northward to the southerly line of the 
existing PG&E property without taking any PG&E property. Enough additional 
land would be taken along the west edge of the terminal development area to 
provide 160 acres, sufficient backland for four standard container berths. 
One of the berths would front on the newly developed property. 



Pier 80 - Alternative 3 

This is similar to Pier 80 - Alternative 2 except that the terminal would 
extend in front (on the bay side) of the PG&E property, push the wharf 
eastward (out into the bay) and take all the land available along the west 
edge to Third Street. This expansion would provide 200 acres of terminal 
backland and five standard berths, two of which would front on the newly 
developed property. Although no PG&E property would be used, cooling water 
lines would have to be extended into the bay. 



Pier 80 - Alternative 4 

This alternative was selected to show that it was possible to develop a five 
berth terminal without involving either PG&E property or its operation, [t 
would also feature a long berth extension northward from the existing berth at 



17 



the east end of Pier 80 that would be an advantage for terminal operations. 
All the available land east of Third Street and south of the PG&E property 
would be uti 1 ized. 



Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 1 

This alternative represents the ultimate marine terminal development possible 
at the Pier 70 - Pier 80 complex using all available land. Seven berths could 
be developed except that each of the four berths fronting the area north of 
existing Pier 80 would be 50 feet shorter than standard. To compensate, the 
annual cargo throughput capability estimate would be reduced. Enough land, 
280 acres, would be available after excluding the area needed for continued 
operation of the PG&E power generating facility. Cooling water intake and 
discharge conduits for the generating facility would be extended as necessary 
to clear the ship navigation area. 



Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 2 

This alternative represents the largest possible terminal development using 
all standard berths and a balanced backland. The resulting terminal would 
have 6 berths and require 240 acres of backland. Berths and backland would be 
arranged to provide efficient terminal operations. 



Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 3 

This alternative is similar to Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 2 except that it is 
arranged to use odd shaped land parcels in order to minimize net new fill. 



3. Criteria For Comparison 

Values and quantities for three basic criteria are developed in this report to 
evaluate alternative container terminal sites. 

Physical arrangement and engineering feasibility 

Terminal development cost 

Environmental impacts 

Subcriteria or "line items" for the basic criteria were selected as the 
minimum necessary to be representative of marine terminal development for 
container terminals under the guidelines and objectives of this study. 

The subcriteria arranged by basic criteria are: 

PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENT AND 
ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY 

Number of berths 
Wharf length 



18 



Terminal area 

Annual cargo throughput capability 
Fill material - quantity 
Dredging - quantity 

TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT COST 

Pier demolition 

Building and grounds demolition 
Dredgi ng 
Fi 1 1 ing 

New wharf construction 
Rock protected fill slopes 
Terminal develpoment 
Gantry cranes 
Yard equipment 

SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Net new acres of fill 

Fill quantity 

Dredging quantity 

Annual land transport traffic 



Cost Estimates 

Quantities were estimated utilizing several sources of information. 
Demolition quantities for piers, buildings and grounds were established using 
1" = 200' aerial photographs dated June, 1985. Hydrographic surveys prepared 
by the Port of San Francisco showing existing underwater elevations were used 
in determining quantities of dredging and fill material, and lengths of rock 
protected slopes. The fourteen drawings prepared by Moffatt & Nichol were 
used to determine the limits of demolition and terminal development including 
the length of concrete wharf, net acres of new fill, terminal area and gantry 
crane layout and utilization. 

Unit prices are based on current construction costs. No allowance has been 
made for contingencies or for any future projected costs. 



Pier Demolition 

This item includes both pile supported "fill", as defined by BCOC, floating 
docks and marginal wharves. It is recognized that the various types of 
construction among them would have different costs of demolition but it was 
decided that the differences would not be of sufficient magnitude to require 
separate line items to make reasonable cost comparisons between alternatives. 
No attempt was made to determine the contractor's methods that might be used 
to do the demolition. 



19 



Building Demolition 



All buildings were assumed to be industrial type buildings about 20 feet high 
of average construction. It was not possible for the level of effort 
anticipated in this study, to assess the cost of demolishing each building. A 
gross approach assuming a constant percentage of the area to be developed into 
new terminals would have existing buildings. From inspection of aerial 
photographs, we assumed that twenty five (25) percent of the land was occupied 
by buildings averaging 20 feet high. That amounted to 217,000 cubic feet of 
building per acre. An estimated demolition cost of $0.36 per cubic foot would 
translate into a building demolition cost per acre of about $78,000. 



Grounds Clearing 

After deducting buildings, about 32,670 square feet or 3,630 square yards per 
acre of other improvements would be left for clearing. Costs for clearing 
various kinds of improvements ranged between $5.00 (for roads) to $17.00 (for 
trackage) A median value of $11.00 per square yard was selected as 
representative of all area clearing including paving, utilities, trackage and 
miscellaneous improvements, resulting in a cost per acre of about $40,000. 



Combined Building and Grounds Demolition Costs 

Both the building demolition cost ($78,000) and the clearing cost (40,000) 
were combined for a total building and grounds demolition cost of $118,000 per 
acre. 



Dredging and Filling 

It is assumed that dredging would be done with a barge mounted clamshell crane 
or equivalent method with disposal of the material in the hole off Alcatraz 
Island. Conversely, it is assumed that granular fill material suitable for 
pile foundations and general filling could be found in the shoal area off 
Alcatraz. In both cases it is estimated that the cost would be $3.00 per 
cubic yard. 



Concrete Wharf 

Costs associated with the concrete wharf construction are divided into two 
major categories, earthwork and actual wharf construction. San Francisco Bay 
mud will not provide adequate structural support for a wharf that utilizes a 
concrete pile foundation system. For this reason, the bay mud beneath the 
wharf area would be excavated and replaced with material having more 
desireable characteristics such as sand or a select granular material. A 
final layer of rock would be placed over this fill material forming a revetted 
slope that will provide protection from wave and current action. Wharf 
construction includes items such as prestressed concrete piles, concrete deck 



20 



and asphalt paving section, bollards and fender system. A section showing the 
items associated with the proposed wharf system is shown on Figure 6. 



Shallow and Deep Rock Protected Slopes 

Concrete wharfs may not extend around all of the terminal perimeter exposed to 
wave action. Slopes in these areas would be covered with rock layers forming 
a revetted slope that would minimize tidal and wave erosion. To provide a 
maximum of protection, the outside face of the revetted slope between -10' 
MLLW and +10' MLLW would be composed of a five foot thick layer of armour 
rock. This layer is located in the zone where most of the wave action occurs 
and where protection is needed the most. Deep rock protected slopes are 
considered to be in those areas where the water depth exceeds -20' MLLW. 



Terminal Development 

Items included under this topic are divided into three primary groups; 
utilities, site improvements and support structures. The utilities include an 
electrical/lighting system, storm drain system, sanitary sewer and water 
system. Concrete and asphalt paving are included under site improvements as 
well as fencing, striping and terminal trackage. Support structures that are 
required include a maintenance shop, administrative building, gate operations 
building, restrooms, lunchrooms and fuel dispensing stations. 



Container Gantries 

Recent trends in container handling indicate that a modern container terminal 
using a "grounded" operation would employ container gantry cranes having a 100 
foot rail gage, a forward reach of over 100 feet, a back reach of 50 feet and 
a lifting capacity of at least 40 tons. Container gantry cranes meeting those 
specif ictions would cost about $3,000,000 each. Usually, three cranes are 
deployed for every two berths and five deployed for every three berths. 



Yard Equipment 

The numbers and types of yard equipment required is dependent on items such as 
the size of the facility, the types of containers that will be handled and the 
anticipated yearly cargo throughput. Equipment used to transport the 
containers include transtainers or travel cranes, yard trucks, heavy duty 
(30,000 lb.) fork lifts and empty container handlers. General use and support 
vehicles include mechanic service trucks, fueling trucks and pick up trucks. 
Miscellaneous items included in this category include first aid supplies, a 
radio communication system and a computer system for overall operation support 
and coordination. 



21 




CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 
CONTAINER WHARF 



CONTAINEK TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT STUDY 
PIER 60. PIER 70 AND PIER 80 
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




22 



C. Alternatives 

The following alternatives are described in this part of the report. 



1. 


Pier 


50 




Alternati ve 


1, 


5 


Berths 


2. 


Pier 


50 




Alternative 


2, 


3 


Berths 


3. 


Pier 


50 




Alternative 


3, 


5 


Berths 


4. 


Pier 


50 




Alternative 


4, 


2 


Berths 


5. 


Pier 


50 




Alternative 


5, 


2 


Berths 


6. 


Pier 


70 




Alternative 


1, 


1 


Berth 


7. 


Pier 


70 




Alternative 


2, 


1 


Berth 


8. 


Pier 


80 




Alternative 


1, 


3 


Berths 


9. 


Pier 


80 




Alternative 


2, 


4 


Berths 


1 U . 


P i er 


ou 




Alternative 


3, 


5 


□er tns 


n. 


Pier 


80 




Alternative 


4, 


5 


Berths 


12. 


Pier 


70 


& 


80 - Alternati 


ve 


1, 7 Berths 


13. 


Pier 


70 


& 


80 - Alternative 


2, 6 Berths 


14. 


Pier 


70 


& 


80 - Alternative 


3, 6 Berths 



23 



PIER 50 - ALTERNATIVE 1 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Mission Rock - 5 berth terminal as planned by Vickerman, et. al. 
PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 5 

Wharf Length 5,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 145 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 4.86 Mil. Tons 
Capabi 1 i ty 

Net Acres of New Fill 33.0 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 3.17 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 1.50 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 121,500 

Railcars 12,150 



25 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 50 - Alternative 1 





Item 




Quanti ty 


Unit Cost 


Total Cost 


1 . 


Pipr Demolition 




33.7 AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 


19,209,000 


2. 


Buildina & Grounds 
Demolition 




77.0 AC 


$ 


118,000 


$ 


9,086,000 


3. 


Dredgi ng 


1,500,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 


4,500,000 


4. 


Fill Material 


3, 


170,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 


9,510,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 




5,000 LF 


$ 


9 ,800 


$ 


49,000,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 




LF 


% 


1,400 


$ 





7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 




LF 


$ 


1,900 


$ 





8. 


Terminal Development 


145 AC 


$ 


190,000 


% 


27,550,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 




8 EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 


24,000,000 


0. 


Yard Equipment 




Lump Sum 






$ 


12,800,000 



TOTAL $155,655,000 



PIER 50 - ALTERNATIVE 2 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Mission Rock 3 berth terminal - Using Moffatt & Nichol 1986 criteria, 
PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 3 

Wharf Length 3,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 122 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 4.08 Mil. Ton 
Capabi 1 i ty 

Net Acres of New Fill 41.3 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 3.33 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 0.50 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 102,000 

Railcars 10,200 



28 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 50 - Alternative 2 





Item 


Quantity 


Unit Cost 


Total Cost 


1. 


Pier Demolition 


29.25 AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 16,672,500 


2. 


Building & Grounds 
Demol i tion 


57.50 AC 


$ 


118,000 


$ 6,785,000 


3. 


Dredging 


500,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 1,500,000 


4. 


Fill Material 3, 


330,000 CY 




3 


$ 9,990,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


3,000 LF 


■p 




$ 29,400,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


1,350 LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 1,890,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


LF 


% 


1,900 


$ 


8. 


Terminal Development 


122 AC 


$ 


190,000 


% 23,180,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


5 £A 


$3,000,000 


$ 15,000,000 


10. 


Yard Equipment 


Lump Sum 






$ 8,000,000 



TOTAL $112,417,500 



29 



5 



(I O * I 

0. a »- * 

0. X u 3 

<t I a 




/ 

I 





('"I i 










o 


n 


* 


: > 


X 




ft. 


f z 


o 


« »- 


o 


- -i 
° < 



£ e IB 



■ 

o 
u 


•» 

sc 

M 

? = c 

<» ■ 

z : ' 

U : : 


( 4 


J : 

- 1 

1 . 

w • 


1 

1 


i : 




< : 




1 


i 



PIER 50 - ALTERNATIVE 3 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Mission Rock terminal expanded to 5 
criteria. Changes to U.S. Pierhead 
this alternative. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 

Wharf Length 

Terminal Area 

Annual Cargo Throughput 
Capabi lity 

Net Acres of New Fill 

Fill Material Quantity 

Dredging Quantity 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round 
Trucks 
Rai Icars 



berths using Moffatt & Nichol 1986 
line would be necessary to accommodate 

5 

5,000 Ft. 
200 AC 

6.7 Mi 1 . Tons 
86 AC 

7.15 Mil. CY 

1.00 Mil. CY 

trips) 
167,500 
16,750 



31 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 50 - AUernative 3 





Item 


Quanti ty 


Unit Cost 


Total Cost 


1. 


Pier Demolition 


33.70 AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 


19,209,000 


2. 


Bui Iding & Grounds 
Demol i tion 


77.00 AC 


$ 


1 18.000 


$ 


9.086.000 


3. 


Dredgi ng 


1,000,000 CY 


s 


3 


$ 


3,000,000 


4. 


Fill Material 


7,150,000 CY 


$ 

■r 


3 




21 .450.000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


5,000 LF 


$ 


9,800 


$ 


49.000.000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


1,250 LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 


1,750,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


LF 


$ 


1,900 


% 





8. 


Terminal Development 


200 AC 


$ 


190,000 


$ 


38,000,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


8 EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 


24,000,000 


10. 


Yard Equipment 


Lump Sum 






$ 


12,800,000 




TOTAL 








$178,295,000 



32 



PIER 50 - ALTERNATIVE 4 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Mission Rock - 2 berth Port of San Francisco concept. 
PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 2 

Wharf Length 2,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 98 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 2.7 Mil. Tons 
Capabi 1 ity 

Net Acres of New Fill 42 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 3.52 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity -0- 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 67,000 

Railcars 6,700 



34 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 50 - Alternative 4 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 26.57 AC $ 570,000 $15,144,900 

2. Building & Grounds 30.00 AC $ 118,000 $ 3,540,000 

Demolition 

3. Dredging CY $ 3 $ 

4. Fill Material 3,520,000 CY $ 3 $10,560,000 

5. Concrete Wharf 2,000 LF $ 9,800 $19,600,000 

6. Rock Protected 1,400 LF $ 1,400 $ 1,960,000 

Slope-Shal low 

7. Rock Protected 1,400 LF $ 1,900 $ 2,660,000 

Slope-Deep 

8. Terminal Development 98 AC $ 190,000 $18,620,000 

9. Gantry Cranes 3 EA $3,000,000 $ 9,000,000 

10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 4,800,000 



TOTAL $85,884,900 



35 



PIER 50 - ALTERNATIVE 5 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Mission Rock - 2 berth concept utili, 
shaped terminal. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 

Wharf Length 

Terminal Area 

Annual Cargo Throughput 
Capabi lity 

Net Acres of New Fi 1 1 

Fill Material Quantity 

Dredging Quantity 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round 
Trucks 
Rai Icars 



ing a minimum of fill producing a "T" 
2 

2,000 Ft. 
80 AC 

2.7 Mil. Tons 
10 AC 

2.05 Mil. CY 

0.50 Mil. CY 

trips) 
67,500 
6,750 



37 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 



Pier 50 - Alternative 5 





Item 


Quantity 


Unit Cost 


Total Cost 


1. 


Pier Demolition 


26.57 AC 


$ 


570,000 


$15,144,900 


2. 


Bui Iding & Grounds 
Demol ition 


46.20 AC 


$ 


118,000 


$ 5,451,600 


3. 


Dredging 


500,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 1,500,000 


4. 


Fill Material 2, 


050,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 6,150,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


2,000 LF 


$ 


9,800 


$19,600,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


1,100 LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 1,540,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


700 LF 


$ 


1,900 


$ 1,330,000 


8. 


Terminal Development 


80 AC 


$ 


190,000 


$15,200,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


3 EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 9,000,000 


10. 


Yard Equipment 
TOTAL 


Lump Sum 






$ 4,800,000 
$79,716,500 



38 



-t a 



i » 



> a- 



°2 
a o 
a. a 

0. X _ - 
<i= * o 



z : 

U : 

J « 
o - 

z . 

w • 



< : 



1 I 



39 



PIER 70 - ALTERNATIVE 1 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 70 property between the Todd Shipyards and the PG&E parcel filled to 
approximately 450' east of existing shoreline to provide for a 1 berth 
terminal . 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 1 

Wharf Length 1000 

Terminal Area 40 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 1.35 Mil. Tons 
Capabi lity 

Net Acres of New Fill 4.4 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 0.65 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 0.20 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 33,750 

Railcars 3,375 



40 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 70 - Alternative 1 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 8.33 AC $ 570,000 $ 4,748,100 

2. Building & Grounds 27.00 AC $ 118,000 $ 3,186,000 

Demol ition 

3. Dredging 200,000 CY $ 3 $ 600,000 

4. Fill Material 650,000 CY $ 3 $ 1,950,000 

5. Concrete Wharf 1,000 LF $ 9,800 $ 9,800,000 

6. Rock Protected 1,000 LF $ 1,400 $ 1,400,000 

Slope-Shal low 

7. Rock Protected 800 LF $ 1,900 $ 1,520,000 

Slope-Deep 

8. Terminal Development 40 AC $ 190,000 $ 7,600,000 

9. Gantry Cranes 2 EA $3,000,000 $ 6,000,000 
10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 3,200,000 



TOTAL $40,004,100 



41 



ui uj a 

« c: * 

o ^ 

£ t o° 

o 3 c O 
3 a s 

Suez 

Z >- « I- 



z o o 



2 - 



z : 

til : 



o 
2 



I I 



I 



133blS _pu ZZ_ 



42 



PIER 70 - ALTERNATIVE 2 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 70 property between the Todd Shipyards and the PG&E properties maximizing 
use of existing land and minimizing new fill. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 1 

Wharf Length 1,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 41 .3 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 1.35 Mil. Tons 
Capability 

Net Acres of New Fill -0- 

Fill Material Quantity 0.42 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 0.30 Mi 1 . CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 33,750 

Railcars 3,375 



A3 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 70 - Alternative 2 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 8.33 AC $ 570,000 $ 4,748,100 

2. Building & Grounds 34.00 AC $ 118,000 $ 4,012,000 

Demol ition 

3. Dredging 300,000 CY $ 3 $ 900,000 

4. Fill Material 420,000 CY $ 3 $ 1,260,000 

5. Concrete Wharf 1,000 LF % 9,800 $ 9,800,000 

6. Rock Protected 800 LF $ 1,400 $ 1,120,000 

Slope-Shal low 

7. Rock Protected 600 LF % 1,900 $ 1,140,000 

Slope-Deep 

8. Terminal Development 41.7 AC $ 190,000 $ 7,923,000 

9. Gantry Cranes 2 EA $3,000,000 $ 6,000,000 
10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 3,200,000 



TOTAL $40,103,100 



44 



i OR 
c 0. s 

U 0.1 



z : 

111 : 

J ■• 

- 

1 . 



o 

2 



= a 



1^: 



o 5 

O UJ 




45 



CIV)*! 



PIER 80 - ALTERNATIVE 1 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 80 expanded north to include railroad property, providing a 3 berth 

container terminal. This is the initial or basic development concept for Pier 

80 independent of Pier 50 development. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 3 

Wharf Length 3,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 1 18 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 3.96 Mil. Tons 
Capabi 1 i ty 

Net Acres of New Fill 7.3 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 0.16 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity -0- 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 99,000 

Railcars 9,900 



46 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
P1er 80 - Alternative 1 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 10.33 AC $ 570,000 $ 5,888,100 

2. Building & Grounds 100.00 AC $ 118,000 $11,800,000 

Demol ition 

3. Dredging CY $ 3 $ 

4. Fill Material 160,000 CY $ 3 $ 480,000 

5. Concrete Wharf 3,000 LF $ 9,800 $29,400,000 

6. Rock Protected 1,600 LF $ 1,400 $ 2,240,000 

Slope-Shallow 

7. Rock Protected LF $ 1,900 $ 

Slope-Deep 

8. Terminal Development 118 AC $ 190,000 $22,420,000 

9. Gantry Cranes 5 EA $3,000,000 $15,000,000 
10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 8,000,000 



TOTAL $95,288,100 



47 




48 



PIER 80 



- ALTERNATIVE 2 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 80 expanded north to the southerly boundary of the PG&E property and west 
a distance sufficient to provide for a 4 berth container terminal. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 4 

Wharf Length 4,000 Ft 

Terminal Area 160 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 5.4 Mil. Tons 
Capability 

Net Acres of New Fill 17.3 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 0.35 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 1.80 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 135,000 

Railcars 13,500 



49 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 



'ier 


80- Alternative 2 












Item 


Quanti ty 


Unit Cost 


Total Cost 


1 . 


Pier Demolition 


10.33 AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 5,888,100 


2. 


Building & Grounds 
Demol i tion 


123.70 AC 


$ 


118,000 


$ 14,596,600 


3. 


Dredging 


1,800,00 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 5,400,000 


4. 


Fill Material 


350,000 CY 


$ 


3 


$ 1,050,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


4,000 LF 


$ 


9,800 


$ 39,200,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Snal low 


200 LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 280,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


400 LF 


$ 


1,900 


$ 760,000 


8. 


Terminal Development 


160 AC 


$ 


190,000 


$ 30,400,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


7 EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 21,000,000 


0. 


Yard Equipment 


Lump Sum 






% 11,200,000 



TOTAL $129,774,700 



50 



§ 2 



S 



K ^ ^ Z ID S 

■ S < ^ O Ik 

O w *^ I lii > >. 

u S O 3 9 >- 

S a K o * z X 

a s & s ^ < < 

3 u & Z Ui 3 3 

z >- <>■ z -o a 



« 5i 
<• u 

w 


~? 
\ 








s 
o 
z 
m 


\ 
) 












\ 










1 






\^ 




\ 








1 










; ■ 


.J 










r 
























1 




\ 




i 










! 














z 
a 










SinEET TEI 




8 








>• 

a 

E 

< 





• 

3 n 





Z ■ 
w • 



z : 














J 












1 












1 
1 







M33tO •IV1II 

51 



PIER 80 - ALTERNATIVE 3 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 80 expanded north 2,000" filling in a portion of the front (east side) of 
the PG&E property. The PG&E parcel will not be effected although provisions 
for extending the cooling water lines to the bay must be made. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 5 

Wharf Length 5000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 200 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 6.75 Mil. Cy 
Capabi 1 i ty 

Net Acres of New Fill 53.6 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 1.74 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 2.00 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 
Trucks 168,750 
Railcars 16,875 



52 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 80 - Alternative 3 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 10.33 AC $ 570,000 $ 5,888,100 

2. Building & Grounds 121.80 AC $ 118,000 $ 14,372,400 

Demolition 

3. Dredging 2,000,000 CY $ 3 $ 6,000,000 

4. Fill Material 1,740,000 CY $ 3 % 5,220,000 

5. Concrete Wharf 5,000 LF $ 9,800 $ 49,000,000 

6. Rock Protected 600 LF $ 1,400 $ 840,000 

Slope-Shal low 

7. Rock Protected 180 LF $ 1,900 $ 342,000 

Slope-Deep 

8. Terminal Development 200 AC $ 190,000 $38,000,000 

9. Gantry Cranes 8 EA $3,000,000 $ 24,000,000 
10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 12,800,000 



TOTAL $156,462,500 



53 



; S S 

£ u ^ 

s < a 



» 5 



• 


g 

< 


2 J 


s 

£ < 
■ c 


U 
> 


X * 

Z 141 


is ! 






s 1 

3 s 

3 u 

z 


m 3 

O 5 
S O 

5- = 


NET ACR 
OUANTIT\ 



2 : 
• " 

z : 

U : 

J « 
e - 
z . 



o 
2 



li 




54 



PIER 80 



- ALTERNATIVE 4 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 80 expanded north to the southern boundary of the PG&E property and west 
to Third Street to provide for a 5 berth terminal. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 5 

Wharf Length 5,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 203 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 6.75 Mil. Tons 
Capability 

Net Acres of New Fill 52.5 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 2.21 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 1.50 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 

Trucks 168,750 

Railcars 16,875 



55 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 



Pier 30 - Alternative 4 





Item 


Quanti ty 


Unit Cost 




Total Cost 


1. 


Pier Demolition 


11.50 


AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 


6,555,000 


2. 


Bui Iding & Grounds 
Demol i tion 


1 or\ cn 


Ar 


•p 


1 lo,UUU 


$ 


14,230,800 


3. 


Dredgi ng 


1 f OU\J f uuu 


r V 






$ 


4,500,000 


4. 


Fill Material 


2,210,000 


rv 
LY 




O 


$ 


6,630,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


5,000 


Lr 


$ 


9,800 


$ 


49,000,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


350 


LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 


490,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 





LF 


$ 


1,900 


$ 





8. 


Terminal Development 203 


AC 


$ 


190,000 


$ 


38,570,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


8 


EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 


24,000,000 


10. 


Yard Equipment 


Lump Sum 






$ 


12,800,000 



TOTAL $156,775,800 



56 




i ' eiVIGI 



PIERS 70 & 80 - ALTERNATIVE 1 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Pier 80 expanded to the north to combine with easterly expanded Pier 70, with 
both piers expanded west to Third Avenue and Illinois Avenue. The unused 
portion of the PG&E parcel is included in the proposed terminal area. The 
operational portion of the PG&E plant would remain as is, and provisions for 
cooling water lines connecting to the bay must be made. This will provide for 
a 7 berth f aci 1 i ty. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 7 

Wharf Length 7,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 280 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 9.15 Mil. Tons 
Capabi lity 

Net Acres of New Fill 61.4 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 3.00 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 3.00 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 
Trucks 228,750 
Railcars 22,875 



58 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 1 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 

1. Pier Demolition 18.66 AC $ 570,000 $ 10,636,200 

$ 118,000 $ 13,928,720 

$ 3 $ 9,000,000 

$ 3 $ 9,000,000 

$ 9,800 $ 66,640,000 

$ 1,400 ( 980,000 

$ 1,900 $ 1,045,000 

$ 190,000 $ 53,200,000 

$3,000,000 $ 33,000,000 

10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 17,600,000 



2. 


Building & Grounds 
Demol ition 


118.04 AC 


3. 


Dredging 


3,000,000 CY 


4. 


Fill Material 


3,000,000 CY 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


6,800 LF 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


700 LF 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


550 LF 


8. 


Terminal Development 


280 AC 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


11 EA 



TOTAL $215,029,920 



59 




60 



PIERS 70 & 80 - ALTERNATIVE 2 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Approximately a 300' wide strip added to the eastern side of the properties 
located between Pier 80 and Pier 70 will extend north from Pier 80 
approximately 3,000' and will include only the southern portion of Pier 70. 
The parcel will extend west to Third Avenue and Illinois Avenue. The portion 
of Pier 70 north of the north boundary of the 300' wide strip and the 
operational portion of the PG&E plant are not included in the proposed 
terminal area. The operational portion of the PG&E plant would remain as is, 
and provisions for cooling water lines connecting to the bay must be made. 
This will provide for a 6 berth facility. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Number of Berths 6 

Wharf Length 6,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 240 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 8.1 Mil. Tons 
Capabi lity 

Net Acres of New Fill 33.4 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 1.80 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 2.80 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 
Trucks 202,500 
Railcars 20,250 



61 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
P1er 70 & 80 - Alternative 2 

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 



1. 


Pier Demolition 


18.66 


AC 


$ 


570,000 


$ 


10,636,200 


2. 


Building & Grounds 
Oemol ition 


117.84 


AC 


$ 


118,000 


$ 


13,905,120 


3. 


Dredging 


2,800,000 


CY 


% 


3 


$ 


8,400,000 


4. 


Fill Material 


1 ,800,000 


CY 


% 


3 


$ 


5,400,000 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


6,000 


LF 


$ 


9,800 


$ 


58,800,000 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


300 


LF 


$ 


1,400 


$ 


420,000 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 





LF 


$ 


1,900 


$ 





8. 


Terminal Development 


250 


AC 


$ 


190,000 


$ 


47,500,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


10 


EA 


$3,000,000 


$ 


30,000,000 


0. 


Yard Equipment 


Lump ! 


Sum 






$ 


16,000,000 



TOTAL $189,826,320 



62 



e 




PIERS 70 & 80 - ALTERNATIVE 3 



GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

A 120' wide strip added to the eastern side of the properties located between 
Pier 80 and Pier 70 will extend north from Pier 80 approximately 3,000 feet 
and will include only the southern portion of the existing Pier 70 wharf. All 
of the existing land portion of Pier 70 is included, and the parcel will 
extend west to Third Avenue and Illinois Avenue. The portion of the Pier 70 
wharf north of the boundary of the 120 foot wide strip and the operational 
portion of the PG&E plant are not included in the proposed terminal area. The 
operational portion of the PG&E plant would remain as is, and provisions for 
cooling water lines connecting to the bay must be made. This will provide for 
a 6 berth f aci lity. 

PERTINENT DATA 

Numbers of Berths 6 

Wharf Length 6,000 Ft. 

Terminal Area 250 AC 

Annual Cargo Throughput 8.10 Mil. Tons 
Capabi 1 i ty 

Net Acres of New Fill 15 AC 

Fill Material Quantity 0.83 Mil. CY 

Dredging Quantity 3.80 Mil. CY 

Annual Land Transport Traffic (round trips) 
Trucks 202,500 
Railcars 20,250 



6A 



CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATE 
Pier 70 & 80 - Alternative 3 





Item 


Quantity 


Unit Cost 


1. 


Pier Demolition 


18.66 AC 


c 




2. 


Building & Grounds 
Demolition 


129.53 AC 


$ 


118,000 


3. 


Dredgi ng 


3,800,000 CY 


t 

■p 


■3 


4. 


Fill Material 


830,000 CY 


% 


3 


5. 


Concrete Wharf 


6,000 LF 


$ 


9,800 


6. 


Rock Protected 

Slope-Shal low 


300 LF 


$ 


1,400 


7. 


Rock Protected 
Slope-Deep 


LF 


$ 


1,900 


8. 


Terminal Development 


250 AC 


$ 


190,000 


9. 


Gantry Cranes 


10 EA 


$3,000,000 



Total Cost 
$ 10,636,200 
$ 15,284,540 

$ 11,400,000 
$ 2,490,000 
$ 58,800,000 
$ 420,000 



$ 47,500,000 
$ 30,000,000 

10. Yard Equipment Lump Sum $ 16,000,000 



TOTAL $192,530,740 



65 



IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



The Port of San Francisco has the option of either planning for (1) 
Separate Terminals at Pier 50, Pier 70, and its present facilities at Piers 80 
and 94-96, tne present plan, or for (2) a Consolidated Terminal spanning the 
waterfront between Pier 70 and Pier 96. 

The Separate Terminal maintains existing Port holdings in the Mission Rock 
vicinity, and is a continuation of present public policy. The Consolidated 
Terminal would allow expansion of the present San Francisco Container 
Terminal, in an area directly adjacent to the existing terminal and the rail 
access provided by tne Intermodal Container Transfer Facility now under 
construction. Costs are expected to be less for a Consolidated Terminal than 
for Separate Terminals. Development of the more economical and thus more 
likely six berth configuration would require less Bay fill for the 
Consolidated Terminal. The technical analysis of this report has not included 
operational efficiencies in having all container terminal operations in a 
contiguous facility with convenient rail access. Infrastructure and backland 
services can be shared in such a concept. This would be expected to add to 
ease and efficiency of operations and thus reduce operating costs. Piers 
48-50 could De maintained in the same active maritime use which presently 
exists, while placing all container terminal operations within one enlarged 
Port nolding. 

V. IMPLICATIONS FOR MISSION BAY 

Tne two container terminal options for the Port of San Francisco result in 
several options for Mission Bay. The City could continue to maintain existing 
public policy to preserve land in the vicinity of Pier 50 east of Third Street 
for a container terminal, thereby restricting Mission Bay to west of Third 
Street. Alternatively, the Port could acquire additional land between Pier 70 
and 80 for Port use, and concentrate its efforts on a consolidated container 
terminal in that location. If this occurred, there would be two alternatives 
for Mission Bay development. For either alternative, Santa Fe Pacific could 
develop its lands east of Third Street as part of Mission Bay. In the first 
alternative, this container terminal relocation would allow use of the 18 
acres of Port land south of China Basin Channel for a park as suggested in the 
Mayor's October 1984 letter to the Southern Pacific Land Company. The second 
alternative would include incorporating both tne potential park site and 
additional Port Land, now freed from prospective container terminal use, into 
tne Mission Bay planning effort. These last two alternatives are similar in 
nature with respect to existing public policy, and will be discussed together. 

A. Maintain Existing Pier 50 Container Terminal Complex 

Development of Pier 50 as a container terminal would preclude any 
long-term use of land east of Third Street for Mission Bay, and alter the 
planning for other portions of the site. That would be consistent with 
maritime-related public policy as identified in this report, a.ltnough a 
consolidated container terminal at Pier* 70 and 80 could likely fulfill the 
intent of tnose same public goals. 



66 



The Port land suggested by the Mayor for park use could theoretically be 
developed and used for park purposes pending establishment of a future 
container terminal. Such park use could be enjoyed for many years, but it 
woula always be subject to loss. Proceeding with any plan for Mission Bay on 
tnis basis would preclude establishment of any permanent open space on this 
land considered critical for the new Mission Bay community. However, if a 
park resource were placed there which, while serving Mission Bay, was 
primarily a citywide resource, its loss in the future theoretically coula be 
mitigated by provision of comparable parkland elsewhere. Public resistance to 
removal of such temporary park space would likely arise. It is more likely 
that existing maritime related uses on the site inland of China Basin Street 
would remain pending future Port development. 

The Santa Fe Pacific land east of Third Street would have to be acquired 
by the Port either by negotiation or condemnation, if (a) a three-berth or (d) 
a two oerth minimum fill (10 acres) Pier 50 container terminal were 
developed. While (c) a two-berth terminal could be developed without using 
Santa Fe Pacific lands, it would require filling 42 acres of the Bay. If 
either of the first two options were to be selected, any Mission Bay planning 
for Santa Fe Pacific land east of Third would be fruitless. If the third 
option were the choice, the Santa Fe Pacific land would have to be planned to 
coexist with a contiguous container terminal, which would likely rule out 
residential use for the Santa Fe Pacific land east of Third Street and for the 
western edge of Third Street, which would have to be planned for 
non-residental uses (as noted in the Noise Buffering special study). 

A container terminal at Pier 50, as suggested in "Choices for Mission Bay" 
Illustrative Plan 5 (See Figure 7) would require substantial buffering for 
housing uses fronting on the west side of Third Street, and in two of the 
three options discussed in the preceding paragraph no permanent open space 
system could extend through residential areas to the Bay. Inasmuch as land 
east of Third Street if developed as part of Mission Bay would most likely 
provide open space and housing use, other land west of Third Street would 
require reassessment to readjust the balance between commercial, residential 
and open space uses in a reduced Mission Bay. 

B. Replace Pier 50 Container Terminal Concept with a Consolidated Pier 70 and 
80 Terminal Complex 

Establishment of a consolidated container terminal complex at Piers 70 and 
80, including lands in between, meets the cargo throughput capacity forecast 
to be needed by public agencies when considering the Pier 50 terminal. It 
would require, however, obtaining use of private lands between Pier 70 and 80, 
and amending public policies set forth in various documents to designate a new 
container terminal development site in that area rather than at Pier 50. 
These requirements are described below, followed by a discussion of possible 
implications for Mission Bay. 

1. Land Acquisition 

Land to be acquired in the vicinity of Pier 70 and 80 includes the Upland 
land, various other properties under private ownership, and a portion of the 
PG&E. Potrero Plant. PG&E intends to continue its Potrero operations, so its 
plant cannot be considered as surplus. However, its present operational 



67 




ILLUSTKA'flVE PLAU ^ 

\^\36\OH PAY 



/ts LP 1 

1 (T CO 200 400 



Housing • 
Higher Density 

Housing- 
Lower Density 

Open Space 

Secondary Office 



Community 
Facilities 

Muni ■ Metro 

Muni • Metrcr 
Station 



R&D 
Retail 

(Local • Serving) 
Maritime 



Notes: Sscondary streets are not shown. 
Muni Metro will run within the 
right of way of streets. 



68 



facilities occupy but a portion of the property. It is assumed for purposes 
of this study that if a compelling public need were to arise for use of that 
lana, if PG&E did not have other compelling needs of its own for expansion, 
and if an acceptable price could be negotiated, then the portion of tne PG&E 
parcel not dedicated to plant use could be incorporated into a container 
terminal facility. It is further assumed that as long as the PG&E Plant 
retained convenient access to ship-borne supplies, a container terminal 
berthing wharf could span its Bayside frontage. Other lands in the vicinity 
under private ownership could be acquired either through negotiation or 
condemnation. The largest parcel is owned by Upland. 

Public lands at Warm Water Cove are a recreational resource for the City. 
They could only be incorporated into a container terminal if suitable and 
comparable public replacement facilities were provided elsewhere. The most 
likely site for relocation would be along the waterfront in the Mission Bay 
vicinity. 

A funding source for these acquisitions would be required, whether public 
or private. If private, Santa Fe Pacific would be clearly indicated, as part 
of a swap for lands within or contiguous to the Mission Bay project boundary. 
The State Lands Conmiission would have to approve any transaction which 
transferrea public trust lands at Pier 50 to a private party in exchange for 
public acquisition of new lands (in which to apply the public trust) of 
comparable value between Pier 70 and 80. 

While clearly the financial feasibility of acquiring the lands is 
essential to the success of the consolidated Pier 70 and 80 concept, funding 
considerations must be resolved through negotiations that are beyond the scope 
of this report. 

2. Public Policy Considerations 

The Seaport Plan would require amendment, to move the near-term marine 
terminal designation from the Pier 50 area to land between Pier 70 and Pier 
80. If Santa Fe Pacific or another private party were acquiring Port land 
inland of Pier 50 as part of a land exchange, the port priority use area of 
the Seaport Plan would be amended to restrict the Pier 50 designation to the 
piers (See Figure 8). A similar shift would be required for the port 
jurisdiction, port priority, and public recreation and access areas in the Bay 
Plan and Special Area Plan. These actions, as described in Section II (D), 
could require approval of either or both the State Lands Commission and State 
Legislature. 

The Port of San Francisco^ master plan would require amendment to designate 
the new container terminal site and delete the Pier 50 terminal concept. The 
Central Waterfront Plan of the Master Plan would require comparable maritime 
amendments. 

The Recreation and Open Space Element and the Central Waterfront Plan of 
the Master Plan would require amendment to delete Warm Water Cove. As noted 
above, an alternate recreational resource would be required as replacement. 



69 



3. Mission Bay Planning 



Transfer of the designated container terminal development site from Pier 
50 to Pier 70 and 80 would remove the obstacle to park use of the Port land 
which was suggested by the Mayor in her 1984 letter to Southern Pacific. This 
could permit development of a wetlands habitat and recreational fields, as 
discussed in the Wetlands/Playf ields special study. It would also remove a 
public policy obstacle to use of the Santa Fe Pacific property east of Third 
for housing, open space or other appropriate use. The relocation of the 
container terminal removes a potentially incompatible neighbor from the new 
Mission Bay residential community. 

The transfer of the container terminal presents the opportunity to 
incorporate other Port land at Pier 50 inland of China Basin Street into 
Mission Bay planning (See Figure 9). This could be very beneficial to a new 
Mission Bay community as access to the Bay along virtually the entire breadth 
of the residential neighborhood would be possible. The open space system 
Deginning at China Basin Channel could run through the residential area to the 
bay, and tlience extend along the Bay from the present Agua Vista Park back to 
China Basin Channel, reconnecting to its source. 



71